11 ms·

There is a comment from @gorhill saying: > Anyway, as it is, I've archived uMatrix's repo, I can't and won't be spending any more time on this project, and nei

by 4cao 6y ago

There is a comment from @gorhill saying: > Anyway, as it is, I've archived uMatrix's repo, I can't and won't be spending any more time on this project, and neither on all such issues [linking to all issues closed as invalid]. https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#issuecomment-694988696 https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uMatrix-issues/issues/291#is... So it's really confirmed then. Very sad news. Edit: there's also a glimmer of hope: > Whoever is free to fork under a new name -- I may re-open and resume development in some future if ever I feel for it.

jiofih 6y ago
That is actually a quite hostile move for OSS, which has become common lately. Unless you have trademarked the name, you don’t get to reserve it for a rainy day, anyone should be able to pick up the torch and continue the project without having to start from scratch with a new unknown name.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  Are you familiar with the story about uBlock and uBlock Origin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History gorhill stopped doing uBlock and passed it to others, who subsequently took it in a direction he didn’t like, so that he resumed maintenance under the name uBlock Origin (since the name “uBlock” had been transferred). So this time when he stops maintaining a project, he’s avoiding the same thing happening.
  - 4cao 6y ago
    @gorhill explains this in a Reddit post from a month ago: > I will never hand over development to whoever, I had my lesson in the past -- I wouldn't like that someone would turn the project into something I never intended it to become (monetization, feature bloat, etc.). At most I would archive the project and whoever is free to fork under a new name. For now I resisted doing this, so people will have to be patient for new stable release. 1. https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/i240ds/request_for_a_stable_umatrix_release_for_cname/g0bh51n/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/i240ds/reques...
  - Aengeuad 6y ago
    The wiki link somewhat explains the situation but to reiterate it for HN: gorhill no longer wanted to work on uBlock full time so he transferred the project to chrisaljoudi who immediately registered ublock.org in order to solicit donations under the valuable uBlock branding. Development on uBlock all but stopped and the project died, some 3 years later chrisaljoudi sold the project to AdBlock who are essentially an advertising company. Meanwhile gorhill continued development at a slower pace on his personal fork, uBlock Origin, which is still maintained to this day. Contribution graph for the original uBlock project during this time frame: https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/graphs/contributors?from=2015-03-01&to=2015-10-01&type=c https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/graphs/contributors?fro... and now compare to the 'personal fork' that is uBlock Origin: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/graphs/contributors?from=2015-03-01&to=2015-10-01&type=c https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/graphs/contributors?from=2... So if 'squatting' the name of your own OSS project is considered 'user hostile' then let this be a lesson to people considering giving up their project: the person you give it to may abuse your trust and the trust of the community in order to further their own agenda, in this situation it was all just pretty harmless petty drama but it might not always work out so well. Random Github projects aren't organisations with funding and staff with rules and responsibilities to keep the project running, it's okay to archive the project and let the community decide what to do, giving the project to the first person who asks may end up achieving the same thing as archiving the project or it may come back to bite you in the arse damaging your reputation in the process.
    - doc_gunthrop 6y ago
      Maybe there ought to be a blacklist for unscrupulous devs who do things like what chrisaljoudi did with Ublock.
- bscphil 6y ago
  I believe because the last commit was released under the GPL this is actually not legally binding, just a request (which IMO should be honored). The GPL only requires "The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it". The only legal way to prevent this would be if "uMatrix" was trademarked, and I don't believe it was. Not a lawyer, could be wrong about this.
  - cedilla 6y ago
    Marks used in trade are automatically protected, just by their commercial use. uMatrix has been commercially used as a name, so it is a trade mark (nb: commercially here does not necessarily mean money is involved). Trademarks don't need to be registered to be enforceable. Registration makes things easier for everyone by stating the registrant's intented scope of the trademark and makes a few things easier for the owner. However, the enforceability of a trademark rests on its awareness by customers, active use by the owner, and active defence of the trademark by its owners. uMatrix certainly is certainly a trade mark, however, the two latter criteria are probably not met. I'm also not a lawyer, just interested in this stuff. This is not legal advice. And of course the details will be wildly different in different parts of the world.
    - bscphil 6y ago
      > uMatrix has been commercially used as a name, so it is a trade mark (nb: commercially here does not necessarily mean money is involved). Again, I don't know anything, but I'm surprised that uMatrix would count as having been "commercially" used. And as you point out, these two criteria probably wouldn't be met if the project becomes inactive: > active use by the owner, and active defence of the trademark by its owners
      - cedilla 6y ago
        uMatrix is without a doubt used as a commercial trade mark. Again, commercial doesn't mean money is involved. It's also still used by the owner, as it's still listed in several extension stores. Trademark protection also doesn't end over night. Trademarks are generally protected for a few years after the owner ceased to use it. Also, one should keep in mind that trademarks aren't primarily an intellectual property concept like patents and copyrights. Their main purpose is to protect consumers from copycats and fake products.
- agustif 6y ago
  the micro u from uTorrent + Matrix would make a nice fork. μMatrix
  - ulucs 6y ago
    I think the names were μBlock and μMatrix at the start (if I remember right from the logos) and got changed somewhere along the way
    - agustif 6y ago
      probably not great for SEO to have the micro on the name!
  - rectang 6y ago
    That would fail the test, "would the consumer find the name confusingly similar", and thus would be a trademark violation.
- ffpip 6y ago
  It's better that way. Every ad company releases a new adblocker with the name being a derivative of uBlock. Let him keep the name uMatrix.
- Macha 6y ago
  Depends what the rules on the new name is. If it is allowed to contain umatrix (like umatrix reborn/umatrix community etc), its not too unusual a move
- epanchin 6y ago
  I disagree. Trust is earned by a name. Someone new picking up the project should earn that trust again. There should be fair competition between forks - not just the first to claim the name wins.
- toyg 6y ago
  Security software (and this is security software) lives and dies on reputation. It makes sense to avoid a situation where some rando could fork it, patch it with rubbish, and just say “this is the updated version!”
- devit 6y ago
  Trademarks and copyrights are automatic, you don't need to do anything to have them (although registering them makes it cheaper to prove you have them). Obviously "anyone should be able to pick up the torch" has the issue that the "anyone" may well be a malicious person who is seeking to defraud the users for monetary gain.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Trademarks must be defended and may be lost. https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2017/05/4-defenses-to-trademark-infringement.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2017/05/4-defenses... https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failure-to-enforce-trademarks-if-you-snooze-do-you-lose/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...
    - takeda 6y ago
      Yes, that means if someone creates uMatrix and the original author won't do anything about it, then that other person can keep that name. We didn't get to that point yet.
- peterwwillis 6y ago
  There is quite old precedent in OSS for creating a brand new project rather than taking the name of the old one. Whether it's because the old one was abandoned, wouldn't incorporate changes, needed functionality had to break the ABI, legal/regulatory issues, copyright issues, etc, forking a project with a new name is commonplace in OSS. Probably most commonly as "-ng" (Next Generation) project names. You already have the right to copy all of someone's years of hard work, add a tiny patch, and pass it off as your own project with a new name. The very least you can do is give respect to the original author by allowing them to keep their original name. Then there's potential for libel. Let's say you fork a project, keep the original name, and then pepper the project with Nazi propaganda. The original author is trying to get a job, and his resume has the name of the original project. A prospective employer searches the name and finds the new project (with the old name) full of hate speech. If he gave away the old name, a libel suit to change the new project's name may fail, and his reputation might be forever tarnished.
  - Aengeuad 6y ago
    >wouldn't incorporate changes Case in point: keepass -> keepassx -> keepassxc, where both keepass and keepassxc are maintained and are essentially separate projects.
  - takeda 6y ago
    I wouldn't say forever, while it is not great that somebody would do this, is not like it isn't possible to preemptively mention that you have nothing to do with the fork, and you are input responsible for the original in your resume.
fireattack 6y ago
Is it as sudden as it looks (like what happened to original uBlock) or was uMatrix already in maintenance mode?
- 4cao 6y ago
  Last release was in the end of February (beta; non-beta was September last year). Last commit was in April. Perhaps the activity was slow, I guess you could call it "maintenance mode," but I've been using it all this time and uMatrix works fine in its current state, so all it means is that there were no new features being added. It looks like the immediate reason for the repository being archived was somebody opening one issue too much.
derefr 6y ago
This makes me realize that Github’s domain model (where “issues” exist as objects associated with—but outside of—the repo) is kind of hostile to forking. The original author wants to close issues not because they’ve been fixed in the codebase, but because he wants to not solve them. To get those same issues “back”, a fork developer would have to: 1. Copy-and-paste the repo, rather than using Github’s forking mechanism, because Github “forks” don’t have their own issues/PRs (being something more equivalent to multi-branch workdir collections for an upstream repo); 2. Copy all the issues over from the origin repo (manually, or by writing a script against Github’s API/CLI); 3. Sadly, likely lose all the original conversation on those issues. These problems would be obviated if issues were just data files committed inside the repo — with any branch that contains the open issue file meaning the issue pertains within that branch; and any branch that closes the issue meaning that the issue is solved as of that commit. A fork developer could just fork the repo in the traditional fashion, and end up with a fork of all the issues alongside. Does any git hosting service/software handle issues in this fashion, i.e. as a layer of web-chrome and backend indexing over files committed to branches of the repo (where you’d always have to be looking at the issues as they exist within a particular branch)? For that matter, does any git hosting service have a sane high-level set of workflows for “forking” in the sense of creating a competing (or replacement) maintained-upstream-repo for people to contribute to?
- josteink 6y ago
  > To get those same issues “back”, a fork developer would have to: 1. Agree with the original author that a fork/take-over is the right thing to do. 2. Create a GitHub organisation for the project, where rights and repos and everything can be re-allocated/delegated as needed. 3. Make original author transfer his repo to this organisation. 4. Done. No more steps. It also includes magic redirects for all requests to the old repo, including issues and also git-request, so down-stream projects won’t even have to know. It’s really very simple, and it works well.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Gorhill promised that #1 will never happen, so this doesn't help.

by 4cao 6y ago

jiofih 6y ago

That is actually a quite hostile move for OSS, which has become common lately. Unless you have trademarked the name, you don’t get to reserve it for a rainy day, anyone should be able to pick up the torch and continue the project without having to start from scratch with a new unknown name.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
chrismorgan 6y ago
Are you familiar with the story about uBlock and uBlock Origin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBlock_Origin#History gorhill stopped doing uBlock and passed it to others, who subsequently took it in a direction he didn’t like, so that he resumed maintenance under the name uBlock Origin (since the name “uBlock” had been transferred). So this time when he stops maintaining a project, he’s avoiding the same thing happening.
- 4cao 6y ago
  @gorhill explains this in a Reddit post from a month ago: > I will never hand over development to whoever, I had my lesson in the past -- I wouldn't like that someone would turn the project into something I never intended it to become (monetization, feature bloat, etc.). At most I would archive the project and whoever is free to fork under a new name. For now I resisted doing this, so people will have to be patient for new stable release. 1. https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/i240ds/request_for_a_stable_umatrix_release_for_cname/g0bh51n/ https://old.reddit.com/r/uBlockOrigin/comments/i240ds/reques...
- Aengeuad 6y ago
  The wiki link somewhat explains the situation but to reiterate it for HN: gorhill no longer wanted to work on uBlock full time so he transferred the project to chrisaljoudi who immediately registered ublock.org in order to solicit donations under the valuable uBlock branding. Development on uBlock all but stopped and the project died, some 3 years later chrisaljoudi sold the project to AdBlock who are essentially an advertising company. Meanwhile gorhill continued development at a slower pace on his personal fork, uBlock Origin, which is still maintained to this day. Contribution graph for the original uBlock project during this time frame: https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/graphs/contributors?from=2015-03-01&to=2015-10-01&type=c https://github.com/uBlock-LLC/uBlock/graphs/contributors?fro... and now compare to the 'personal fork' that is uBlock Origin: https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/graphs/contributors?from=2015-03-01&to=2015-10-01&type=c https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/graphs/contributors?from=2... So if 'squatting' the name of your own OSS project is considered 'user hostile' then let this be a lesson to people considering giving up their project: the person you give it to may abuse your trust and the trust of the community in order to further their own agenda, in this situation it was all just pretty harmless petty drama but it might not always work out so well. Random Github projects aren't organisations with funding and staff with rules and responsibilities to keep the project running, it's okay to archive the project and let the community decide what to do, giving the project to the first person who asks may end up achieving the same thing as archiving the project or it may come back to bite you in the arse damaging your reputation in the process.
  - doc_gunthrop 6y ago
    Maybe there ought to be a blacklist for unscrupulous devs who do things like what chrisaljoudi did with Ublock.
bscphil 6y ago
I believe because the last commit was released under the GPL this is actually not legally binding, just a request (which IMO should be honored). The GPL only requires "The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it". The only legal way to prevent this would be if "uMatrix" was trademarked, and I don't believe it was. Not a lawyer, could be wrong about this.
- cedilla 6y ago
  Marks used in trade are automatically protected, just by their commercial use. uMatrix has been commercially used as a name, so it is a trade mark (nb: commercially here does not necessarily mean money is involved). Trademarks don't need to be registered to be enforceable. Registration makes things easier for everyone by stating the registrant's intented scope of the trademark and makes a few things easier for the owner. However, the enforceability of a trademark rests on its awareness by customers, active use by the owner, and active defence of the trademark by its owners. uMatrix certainly is certainly a trade mark, however, the two latter criteria are probably not met. I'm also not a lawyer, just interested in this stuff. This is not legal advice. And of course the details will be wildly different in different parts of the world.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    > uMatrix has been commercially used as a name, so it is a trade mark (nb: commercially here does not necessarily mean money is involved). Again, I don't know anything, but I'm surprised that uMatrix would count as having been "commercially" used. And as you point out, these two criteria probably wouldn't be met if the project becomes inactive: > active use by the owner, and active defence of the trademark by its owners
    - cedilla 6y ago
      uMatrix is without a doubt used as a commercial trade mark. Again, commercial doesn't mean money is involved. It's also still used by the owner, as it's still listed in several extension stores. Trademark protection also doesn't end over night. Trademarks are generally protected for a few years after the owner ceased to use it. Also, one should keep in mind that trademarks aren't primarily an intellectual property concept like patents and copyrights. Their main purpose is to protect consumers from copycats and fake products.
agustif 6y ago
the micro u from uTorrent + Matrix would make a nice fork. μMatrix
- ulucs 6y ago
  I think the names were μBlock and μMatrix at the start (if I remember right from the logos) and got changed somewhere along the way
  - agustif 6y ago
    probably not great for SEO to have the micro on the name!
- rectang 6y ago
  That would fail the test, "would the consumer find the name confusingly similar", and thus would be a trademark violation.
ffpip 6y ago
It's better that way. Every ad company releases a new adblocker with the name being a derivative of uBlock. Let him keep the name uMatrix.
Macha 6y ago
Depends what the rules on the new name is. If it is allowed to contain umatrix (like umatrix reborn/umatrix community etc), its not too unusual a move
epanchin 6y ago
I disagree. Trust is earned by a name. Someone new picking up the project should earn that trust again. There should be fair competition between forks - not just the first to claim the name wins.
toyg 6y ago
Security software (and this is security software) lives and dies on reputation. It makes sense to avoid a situation where some rando could fork it, patch it with rubbish, and just say “this is the updated version!”
devit 6y ago
Trademarks and copyrights are automatic, you don't need to do anything to have them (although registering them makes it cheaper to prove you have them). Obviously "anyone should be able to pick up the torch" has the issue that the "anyone" may well be a malicious person who is seeking to defraud the users for monetary gain.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Trademarks must be defended and may be lost. https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2017/05/4-defenses-to-trademark-infringement.html https://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2017/05/4-defenses... https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failure-to-enforce-trademarks-if-you-snooze-do-you-lose/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/02/28/failu...
  - takeda 6y ago
    Yes, that means if someone creates uMatrix and the original author won't do anything about it, then that other person can keep that name. We didn't get to that point yet.
peterwwillis 6y ago
There is quite old precedent in OSS for creating a brand new project rather than taking the name of the old one. Whether it's because the old one was abandoned, wouldn't incorporate changes, needed functionality had to break the ABI, legal/regulatory issues, copyright issues, etc, forking a project with a new name is commonplace in OSS. Probably most commonly as "-ng" (Next Generation) project names. You already have the right to copy all of someone's years of hard work, add a tiny patch, and pass it off as your own project with a new name. The very least you can do is give respect to the original author by allowing them to keep their original name. Then there's potential for libel. Let's say you fork a project, keep the original name, and then pepper the project with Nazi propaganda. The original author is trying to get a job, and his resume has the name of the original project. A prospective employer searches the name and finds the new project (with the old name) full of hate speech. If he gave away the old name, a libel suit to change the new project's name may fail, and his reputation might be forever tarnished.
- Aengeuad 6y ago
  >wouldn't incorporate changes Case in point: keepass -> keepassx -> keepassxc, where both keepass and keepassxc are maintained and are essentially separate projects.
- takeda 6y ago
  I wouldn't say forever, while it is not great that somebody would do this, is not like it isn't possible to preemptively mention that you have nothing to do with the fork, and you are input responsible for the original in your resume.

fireattack 6y ago

Is it as sudden as it looks (like what happened to original uBlock) or was uMatrix already in maintenance mode?

4cao 6y ago
Last release was in the end of February (beta; non-beta was September last year). Last commit was in April. Perhaps the activity was slow, I guess you could call it "maintenance mode," but I've been using it all this time and uMatrix works fine in its current state, so all it means is that there were no new features being added. It looks like the immediate reason for the repository being archived was somebody opening one issue too much.

derefr 6y ago

This makes me realize that Github’s domain model (where “issues” exist as objects associated with—but outside of—the repo) is kind of hostile to forking. The original author wants to close issues not because they’ve been fixed in the codebase, but because he wants to not solve them. To get those same issues “back”, a fork developer would have to: 1. Copy-and-paste the repo, rather than using Github’s forking mechanism, because Github “forks” don’t have their own issues/PRs (being something more equivalent to multi-branch workdir collections for an upstream repo); 2. Copy all the issues over from the origin repo (manually, or by writing a script against Github’s API/CLI); 3. Sadly, likely lose all the original conversation on those issues. These problems would be obviated if issues were just data files committed inside the repo — with any branch that contains the open issue file meaning the issue pertains within that branch; and any branch that closes the issue meaning that the issue is solved as of that commit. A fork developer could just fork the repo in the traditional fashion, and end up with a fork of all the issues alongside. Does any git hosting service/software handle issues in this fashion, i.e. as a layer of web-chrome and backend indexing over files committed to branches of the repo (where you’d always have to be looking at the issues as they exist within a particular branch)? For that matter, does any git hosting service have a sane high-level set of workflows for “forking” in the sense of creating a competing (or replacement) maintained-upstream-repo for people to contribute to?

josteink 6y ago
> To get those same issues “back”, a fork developer would have to: 1. Agree with the original author that a fork/take-over is the right thing to do. 2. Create a GitHub organisation for the project, where rights and repos and everything can be re-allocated/delegated as needed. 3. Make original author transfer his repo to this organisation. 4. Done. No more steps. It also includes magic redirects for all requests to the old repo, including issues and also git-request, so down-stream projects won’t even have to know. It’s really very simple, and it works well.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Gorhill promised that #1 will never happen, so this doesn't help.